Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

> Quote:
> Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a resurgence in
> the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as indicated by Georg
> Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference, noting that none of his
> company's customer requests exhibit a desire for Smalltalk. Chan writes
> that Smalltalk's status as a OO language does not really provide an
> explanation of why it might be superior to other OO languages, and why,
> given such alleged superiority, it has been displaced by the likes of Java
> and C# as the most preferred language for enterprises in the last decade.
> "This is the essence of the Smalltalk Paradox," Chan says. The author
> reasons that developers may have difficulty relating Smalltalk's
> programming concepts, presented by defining the language's five principal
> vocabulary terms (object, message, class, instance, and method), to
> something else they already know. The vocabulary defines four rules of the
> language: All things are objects; all objects represent instances of some
> class; objects perform tasks by sending messages; and messages are
> deployed via methods. Chan attributes Smalltalk's lack of popularity to
> several factors, including the defensive posture Smalltalk developers
> assume when the language's superiority is questioned, and the absence of a
> major industry backer with the marketing muscle to facilitate Smalltalk's
> mainstream penetration. The author believes the Smalltalk community would
> receive a significant boost by attracting outsiders and discussing
> collaboration.
> Unquote.

> Quote:
> Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a resurgence in
> the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as indicated by Georg
> Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference, noting that none of his
> company's customer requests exhibit a desire for Smalltalk. Chan writes
> that Smalltalk's status as a OO language does not really provide an
> explanation of why it might be superior to other OO languages, and why,
> given such alleged superiority, it has been displaced by the likes of Java
> and C# as the most preferred language for enterprises in the last decade.
> "This is the essence of the Smalltalk Paradox," Chan says. The author
> reasons that developers may have difficulty relating Smalltalk's
> programming concepts, presented by defining the language's five principal
> vocabulary terms (object, message, class, instance, and method), to
> something else they already know. The vocabulary defines four rules of the
> language: All things are objects; all objects represent instances of some
> class; objects perform tasks by sending messages; and messages are
> deployed via methods. Chan attributes Smalltalk's lack of popularity to
> several factors, including the defensive posture Smalltalk developers
> assume when the language's superiority is questioned, and the absence of a
> major industry backer with the marketing muscle to facilitate Smalltalk's
> mainstream penetration. The author believes the Smalltalk community would
> receive a significant boost by attracting outsiders and discussing
> collaboration.
> Unquote.

> Hi Marten,
>
> on Thu, 11 May 2006 08:59:04 +0200, you <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>
>
> And from Sun, see "Constructing a metacircular Virtual machine in an  
> exploratory programming environment"
> - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1094865

> Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:
>
>> Hi Marten,
>>
>> on Thu, 11 May 2006 08:59:04 +0200, you <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
>>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>>
>>
>> And from Sun, see "Constructing a metacircular Virtual machine in an  
>> exploratory programming environment"
>> - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1094865
>
>  Nice to see ! More of these publications and somewhere in
> the future a company will create a new language - perhaps
> containing all needed stuff.

>> - http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/187200914
>
> Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with that article. He seemed to think  
> that somebody at StS had the brilliant idea of writing web apps in  
> Smalltalk, and folks were busy figuring out how such a thing might  
> be done. These Smalltalkers are showing a lot of pluck - maybe  
> they'll survive after all.
>
> I suppose it's impressive the article got published at all.
>
> Colin
>

>
>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a  
>> reborn of
>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>
> And from Sun, see "Constructing a metacircular Virtual machine in  
> an exploratory programming environment"
> - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1094865

> People keep mentioning technical aspects of Smalltalk as being the
> ones that will make people want to use it.  Technologists are
> interested in technology, so this is not surprising.  However, people
> are more important than technology.  If Smalltalk is going to have a
> resurgence, the people who know and love Smalltalk will have to make
> it happen.  It isn't going to happen automatically.  Jeremy Chan is
> right to emphasize people problems like "no big company is pushing
> it".
>
> Every tool has its stengths and weaknesses.  To make Small prosper,
> people should use it where it works and not use it where it doesn't
> work.  Smalltalk is fantastic in small groups of motivated
> programmers.  It is not so good in large groups with high turnover.
> People seem to get excited about large Smalltalk projects, and to long
> for the days of ten years ago when there were 100 person projects.  In
> my opinion, those projects were never run well, and were probably all
> a mistake.  Many of them were successful in the sense of bringing a
> product to market, but all the ones I saw could have been done faster
> and cheaper with a smaller team.
>
> Smalltalk fans ought to go start companies.  Smalltalk has lots of
> advantages in a startup, where it is important to get something
> running quickly and where compatibility with existing systems is not
> so important.  It doesn't work as well in a big company, where it is
> iimportant to play it safe and there are existing standards and lots
> of  existing systems.
>
> Smalltalk is a wonderful language both for teaching and for research.
> I've always wondered why it did so poorly in universities.  I think
> that one of the reasons is that it is hard to learn.  There are too
> many things about Smalltalk that are new.  The language is easy, but
> the class libraries are large, and the programming environment is
> different from what people are used to.  People are not used to "live
> objects" and do not know how to take advantage of them.  The class
> library is not modularized, so it is hard for newcomers to see what to
> learn first.
>
> Smalltalk is pretty easy to learn if you are pair programming with an
> expert whose main goal is for you to learn, not to build a system.  It
> is hard to learn from a book and from experimentation.  I taught
> myself Smalltalk 20 years ago and have since taught it to a thousand
> or so students.  I tell my students that they all will learn Smalltalk
> faster than I did, because they will have a teacher.  This is not 100%
> true, since some students didn't try very hard.  But it is pretty easy
> to learn when you have a teacher who knows Smalltalk well.  One of the
> problems with getting it used in schools is that somebody has to teach
> the teachers.
>
> So, if you want to help Smalltalk spread, sit down and program with  
> a newbie!
>
> -Ralph Johnson
>
>

> Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:
>
> > Quote:
> > Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a
> > resurgence in  the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as
> > indicated by Georg  Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference,
> > noting that none of his  company's customer requests exhibit a desire
> > for Smalltalk.
>
>
>  I'm not sure, if Georg Heeg means "new" customers. Perhaps he sees
> reactions
> from old customers, who remember their investment into Smalltalk 8 years

> and these programs are running and runnning ... and now these customers
> are updating their application with VW 7.x .
>
>  Another story I heard was, that these old customers realized, that
> money is
> short and its much cheaper to enhance their old running applications than
> to rewrite it from scratch - not knowing, if this would work.
>
>  And another rumour was, that these "enhancements" are often against
> company rules ("we do all with Java in the future") and these investments
> are below a magical amount of money, where the local subsidaries of
> these companies can do the enhancement investment without querying
> the bosses of the IT departments in the main company.
>
>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>
>  Marten
>
> --
> Marten Feldtmann - Germany - Software Development
> Information regarding VA Smalltalk and DMS-system
> "MSK - Mien Schrievkrom" at: www.schrievkrom.de
>
>

> Hi all,
>
> IMO we confuse people when we try to talk to them
>  using the same language, and words they use for
>  current tools.
> Some words we use and we *must* think about
>  the convenience to continue doing the same way
>  are:
>
> -Smalltalk as a (dynamic) language.
>  no comment now on the topic because I have
>  written on it in the past and no answer has been
>  received in this list (why?).
>  -I think it is one of the most important word to confuse
>  people and force them to do not think in other terms
>  than talking to a computer... (instead of building systems
>  or working in a non-declarative manner)
>
> -"Class"
>  aClass is an element of a formal theory, like aRule
>  but more complex.
>  Java, C++ and all other OOL use classes...
>  because they are languages and can be used *only*
>  declarativelly (in an object ORIENTED way).
>  We use (in Smalltalk) an expression for creating "classes",
>  but really we do not have classes, we have "SPECIES"
>  in smalltalk, because we can use smalltalk in other manner
>  than declarative ways, e.g. doing non-formal activities.
>  I say "sepcies" because they have organic relations
>  conforming an ambience (an open system where
>  evolution can be observed as a subproduct of systems
>  development -not planned- ).
>  Why we talk about "Classes" and not about Species?
>  Have we evaluated the cost of continue talking that way?
>  Why we talk about packages and not about organs
>      and organisms?
>
>  If we use the same words as scientist used for theory,
>  people will think in terms of known facts, and will
>  compare Smalltalk's syntax, frameworks or other
>  OO povs; but never will be interested in other topics.
>  (most smalltalkers use smalltalk as a very good IDE
>   and design using pieces of paper; and miss the
>   differences between non-formal design and informal
>   design)
>
> -Image
>  When we talk about "the image", people does not
>  understand the convenience of developing "applications"
>  that way.
>  But also we give people the idea of considering Smalltalk
>   as a container (of objects).
> This kind of argument is valuable for newbies, but must
>  be corrected early in the instruction process, because
>  inhibit people to undestand/realize activities on open
>  systems.
>  The concept of "living" system (I prefer the world "ambient"
>  to do not make analogies to nature)  let people put the
>  formal/declarative way of producing software in its
>  place and recognize that there are situations where
>  we need more than OO techniques to build systems.
>
> -Variables
>  we use the term "instance variable" for the collaborators
>  of an object.
>  The world variable has well known meaning in traditional
>   computing, and refers to a place in memory that
>  "varies" contents.
>  We put "names" to objects in smalltalk, but do not use
>   variables because we do not consider memory as a
>  directionable (through names nor numbres) device.
>
> -Assignment
>  we assign a name to an object in smalltalk
>   (we name objects) and the concept is not the same
>   of assigment of a value to a variable as in Pascal.
>
> -Evolution
>  when we talk about evolution, people understand the
>  term in a colloquial meaning, and most of the time consider
>  that evolution is something that can be produced (an object).
>  Evolution as an emergent/cocnecuence of the survival
>   of a system is something not "natural" for people (nor
>   for Darwin :-P )
>
> -Message & method
>  people talk about them without paying attention to the
>  differences; if we do not correct the ambiguity sooner
>  the words we say have diferent meaning.
>  If we do the correction, we must not continue talking
>  until sure about the listener undestood the concepts.
>  In both cases dialoge is broken and is not possible
>  to talk to an unknown/big audience.
>
> -Frameworks and engines
>  It is correct to talk about frameworks in Java and in Smalltalk,
>   because both are usefull to specify anstractions.
>  It is not correct to talk about machines (or engines, an
>   instantiation of a framework) in Java (or C++, or .Net)
>  because they are not ambiences and abstractions
>  are not used/present at the same time as running instances.
>
> -Code
>  When we talk about (source)code (or genetic code)
>   we are promoting to do not consider the convenience
>   to work with objects.
>  The same occurs when we say that smalltalk is "A/one"
>   language.
>  Smalltalk contains a native language, but can hold many
>   languages each for a diferent context...
>
> -object ORIENTATED
>  Smalltalk is not object oriented.
>  Java, C++, .net and other oo plataforms and decarative
>  languages are object "oriented" becasue you do not have
>  the object (the instance) to talk to.
>
> -information
>  people view information as anObject.
>  we can use the ambience to show taht there is another
>  ways of thinking about information (e.g. "information as aProcess")
> ( more on information:
>     http://www.truxton.com/~trux/etc/boi/
>     spanish version at
>     http://www.smalltalking.net/Papers/boi/boi.html
> )
>
> cheers,
> Ale.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marten Feldtmann" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal
> (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}
>
>
>> Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:
>>
>>> Quote:
>>> Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a
>>> resurgence in  the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as
>>> indicated by Georg  Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions  
>>> Conference,
>>> noting that none of his  company's customer requests exhibit a  
>>> desire
>>> for Smalltalk.
>>
>>
>>  I'm not sure, if Georg Heeg means "new" customers. Perhaps he sees
>> reactions
>> from old customers, who remember their investment into Smalltalk 8  
>> years
> ago
>> and these programs are running and runnning ... and now these  
>> customers
>> are updating their application with VW 7.x .
>>
>>  Another story I heard was, that these old customers realized, that
>> money is
>> short and its much cheaper to enhance their old running  
>> applications than
>> to rewrite it from scratch - not knowing, if this would work.
>>
>>  And another rumour was, that these "enhancements" are often against
>> company rules ("we do all with Java in the future") and these  
>> investments
>> are below a magical amount of money, where the local subsidaries of
>> these companies can do the enhancement investment without querying
>> the bosses of the IT departments in the main company.
>>
>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a  
>> reborn of
>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>>
>>  Marten
>>
>> --
>> Marten Feldtmann - Germany - Software Development
>> Information regarding VA Smalltalk and DMS-system
>> "MSK - Mien Schrievkrom" at: www.schrievkrom.de
>>
>>
>
>